EDU 807 - Spring 2019 - Interview with Megan Erickson
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
In this episode of the Majority Report, Megan Erickson critiques a variety of ideas that are popular in current conversations related to educational technology. I have tried to mark a few spots in the video related to different topics, and I invite you to discuss these ideas -- in light of what you just read in the ISTE standards.
As you listen, consider what the conceptions of students (and what technology/standards) can do with/for/to students? Who benefits? Who is left behind? What is the actual purpose for using the technology?
As you read, make connections between Erickson's argument about how and why students should use technology and compare them to the ISTE Standards.
What types of changes outlined in the standards appear to be easy to make? Which changes will be more difficult? Why?
For instance, at at about 1:50, she talks about "student-centered" and "personalized" techniques and then deconstructs that argument. This reminds me of ISTE standard for students 5c, which suggests that students "Demonstrate personal responsibility for lifelong learning." At this point in the video, then, I would want to offer some connection between Erickson and ISTE, pointing out the fact that -- while ISTE may have good intentions to help students become self-motivated and independent, Erickson notes that this is an unrealistic expectation fueled by a technocratic vision of education. What, in the ed tech industry's eyes, does it mean to be "personalized?" Is personalized learning in all students' best interests? Etc...
I was working with district administrators the first week in January and this HS principal commented that he gets frustrated with technology sometimes (district has been 1:1 for six or seven years now) because there seems to be so much collaborative work that it is hard to tell individual student success. Reading your comments made me think of this moment which is pretty much the opposite of what is discussed in the interview.
When we are trying to give students individual grades to show their growth and progress, it is hard to know where each individual lies in regard to the material if all assignments are collaborative. Balance is key!
Please offer three initial comments, as well as three replies to your classmates' comments.
In this segment, she talks about “personalized learning,” making connections to Skinner and Kahn Academy.
Overall, the concept of Kahn Academy is very isolating for students as they receive their “personalized learning.” What’s more, these types of learning platforms are digitized textbooks which prescribe to students what they will learn rather than embracing ISTE standards which ask the student to chart the course.
In this segment, she talks about “charter schools.”
As someone who has worked in a charter school operated by an ophthalmologist who designed his school around how the brain/eyes function, I can tell you that it takes a certain something to keep a school functioning and money isn’t it.
Last year, I had the opportunity to visit Kent Innovation High (http://studentvoice.kentisd.org/theschool/aboutinnovationhigh/) near Grand Rapids and was blown away by it. This program is operated by the public district as a subsidiary of the Career Tech Center. They didn’t follow a 55-minute, 6-class day but instead had problem-based learning and combined classes so students could see the overlap. Everything they did was project based. Yes, they had technology at their fingertips as they needed it, but they had the choice to use it or not or in what capacity it was helpful. I don’t think the solution is charter schools; I think it would be better for schools that know how to function/run look for alternative scheduling options and ideas that can begin to incorporate changes like these into the curriculum. I just don’t see how it’s done well when we file kids through a 6-hour day from one class to the other and never allow them to see the connections.
In this segment, she talks about “income and SES.”
on children. There is a piece of from this past fall titled, “The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids is Not What We Expected” that I use with my students as a conversation starter when we talk about the digital divide and more importantly (in my opinion) the digital use divide. So often tech is touted as a savior for those who have less when, as stated in the interview, this is not the case. And, while I know that the NY Times piece isn’t grounded in academic research, I do find the point on the privilege of choice to be powerful and thought-provoking.
https://nyti.ms/2JkjOuf
This concept is HUGE! With the push for data, numbers, and growth, schools don’t want classes that divert from the “norm.” This is why so many teachers are at the S-A level of SAMR, because it takes less time to simply substitute or augment while still collecting all the data administrators want and preparing for ultimate success on a test bought and paid for by the highest bidder.
I also found this article interesting as you start to look at data and how technology fits into that role: https://hbr.org/2019/01/data-was-supposed-to-fix-the-u-s-education-system-heres-why-it-hasnt?fbclid=IwAR2HM399a087LZcfqfz8qikFkEaLl7C2k7r7h8bzEU9menKL9fiuUh9bPWo
On the one hand, I agree that teachers need something to prove what our guts tell us about what students know and do not know. Administrators and other stakeholders seem to think a certain type of data is “it”, but it is busy work. So many of my coworkers fudge their eval. data so that they can jump through the hoop in order to get to the actual teaching and learning.
This example of the teachers being given a 40-minute training before taking on such a huge task – and with the wrong focus – makes me cringe. Even Ertmer stated (and has been arguing) that the focus should be on learning goals, NOT the technology tools, and what PD can be given to teachers to help them use technology to support learning (https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/06/14/the-future-of-classroom-technology-5-experts.html). I actually LOVE trying out new tech. tools for the classroom, but I do have a little bit of the Selwyn spirit in that I’m questioning if it actually helps my students, especially in terms of deeper learning and thinking, creating, connecting. Sometimes it’s fun just to try something for the heck of it, but that shouldn’t be the norm for education.
So good to hear that you are embracing the “Selwyn spirit” here as you think about the role of ed tech in your classroom.
In particular, as you think about a tool like Gimkit, what do you think you should be considering? Regardless of how we feel about school culture overall, and the ways in which “learning” is positioned as simply “remembering for the test,” do tools like this have value for the long term? In other words, as something more than a “review” for a test, what good might these types of tools be for self-directed learners?
One thing I do disagree with many ed. tech. researchers about is the weight of motivation. Maybe it is just my district, where students really do not have the access that others might, but using tools such as Gimkit is HIGHLY motivating and that’s not something that I can ignore as a classroom teacher, so I have to think about if it is actually achieving any of my learning goals. Truly, just interacting and practicing content helps them, especially if the questions are a bit more challenging. These are good times to discuss Blooms and deeper thinking about topics as well as collaboration/partnering. One of my favorite aspects is the immediate feedback for me (how well do they know this and do I need to reteach?) and them (do they need more practice before an assessment?). I’m always on the lookout for formative assessment tools that can push them to think a little more deeply; Gimkit may not be “IT” but does more than some of the more popular tools and has potential, especially considering some recent news (https://medium.com/gimkit/whats-next-for-me-and-gimkit-948a3459d275).
As PD is a significant portion of my job right now – this makes me cringe. The LA Unified story is often mentioned in “what not to do” situations. I guess I am just still struggling with why there isn’t change when we know that teacher professional development is crucial to “successful” technology integration. I feel like it is common knowledge (maybe it isn’t?) that the technology tool isn’t the “game changer” but how we use the tool and what we are asking students to do with the technology is where the potential lies. Yet, so often, teacher training is less than optimal. How do we push to improve pd and other learning opportunities for teachers?
At this point in the game, so much is being pushed on teachers for them to do on their own time with fewer resources, for more students, with less respect, for less pay, and so on. It’s not a secret that people are leaving the profession at an alarming rate, but it it also not surprising that they would not be able to do one more thing on their own time. I’m not trying to sound like a cranky old bitty, but there simply aren’t enough hours in the day to meet all of the expectations plus go beyond.
If we want teachers to make real change we have to give them paid, supported time. If we (as in school leaders) value it, we have to make time for it.
When I’m absent, that is more time that I do not get to instruct my students or help them while they work. Especially in Spanish, subs are glorified babysitters and cannot usually help. So while I am all for signing up for PD and useful trainings, the time it takes away from my room is a downside.
In this segment, she talks about “classroom design.”
In our personal lives, many of us can list many examples of how we use technology to connect and socialize, but this doesn’t happen often in the classroom (I’m speaking generally). Selwyn talked about this in his first chapter and Erickson illustrated this: students sitting quietly at their individual computers, not interacting. This is not exactly meeting ISTE’s student collaboration standard…but I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. As a teacher, I will say we fight against many different forces: student motivation (it’s DIFFICULT to get them to actually collaborate and change from the way things have always been done), administrative expectations (evaluations, what they expect to hear and see), parents and community, money and resources, time…plus, we’re expected to accomodate every type of learning style and individual preference, so wouldn’t working individually/independently, quietly be ideal for some of these students? Personally, I believe in balance and doing the best with what we have while continuing to push for more. Sometimes it’s okay for students to work independently. Sometimes it’s okay to work collaboratively. Sometimes it’s okay to be the creator/producer and sometimes it’s okay to be the consumer. There’s a lot of negativity about about the phenomenon of students obtaining knowledge from other sources (teachers, computers), but isn’t it true that in life we all obtain knowledge from other sources AND we create it too?
Didn’t Liz Kolb show the same type of image in her Webinar snippets? She showed that little guy with headphones on in front of the iPad, but he was just swiping to get to the game. What if schools didn’t have 1:1 devices but more like 1:2 or 1:3? Then, we could still integrate tech into our classrooms but students would have to pair up to work on something.
Students working together often reach higher levels of critical thinking as well. This collaborative work also allows children to see others as resources and to become resources themselves. And doesn’t this all help to build autonomous learners? Certainly as Melissa points out, it’s okay at times to work alone as well. I think the material and learning goals need to drive this decision, not the tech tool.
Does anyone know the terms “hogs and logs”? One student completely takes over the work, does all the speaking,etc. and the other just sits there like a bump on a log. That is one of my only concerns when I pair or group students, so my assignments have to be carefully designed so that there is individual accountability. Also, I know I learn better by DOING, so if I’m paired with someone and sharing a device, I actually am not learning as well.
I actually agree with everything you both have said, but sometimes in practice, it gets difficult and time-consuming.
As I scrolled down and caught this comment, I couldn’t help but think that this user is totally correct. We’ve used the buzzword of student centered to the point that they are the sun and the learning revolves around them in isolation instead of the system moving together. Maybe a more appropriate term would be “collaboration-centered”? This might get closer to what teachers want to see in their classes. Tech might help that collaboration and it might not.
The individualized work of programs like Kahn that boast student-centered learning are teaching students that they still don’t have the answers – that they have to get the process 100% correct to move forward. I don’t see this concept on the ISTE standards. The ideas there are that students can gather multiple sources, synthesize and revise as needed, try the process, and construct (ISTE #3), design (#4), and think (#5). Knowledge is not a one-way street any longer (just as the teacher is trying to shift to a facilitator rather than the “sage on the stage”) and tech tools can allow students to interact with information and each other more than sitting in front of a bought program that pushes them through a linear set of problems.
Yes, I know that data and dollars are very different things, but I pray for better decision-making from admin and boards.
Options to the Big History Project taking over social studies curriculum) has some value, but is often a sellout to interests not focused on the learning of students. As a school board member, we had organizations wanting to put up advertising inside schools for a tempting payback…and no one in the room pointed out that students have enough trouble focusing on school work and don’t need a Taco Bell ad right next to their English classroom door.
In this segment, she talks about “curriculum reform.”
Clearly we need some sort of guidelines to ensure children in each state are being taught what’s needed. However, these sets of standards and curriculum reform (which is ongoing) will need parental and community support to thrive. Incorporating tech in the curriculum may be helpful, but it certainly won’t guarantee that its use will extend, enhance, or engage learning.
Erickson is optimistic that parents, students, and teachers’ unions will begin to question and have a stronger voice in the decisions being made about ed. tech, which aligns with ISTE’s student standard #2 as well as ISTE’s teacher standards #2 and #3. I am curious, though, about how teachers approach their standard regarding empowering students to “positively contribute to and responsibly participate in the digital world” when parents/community/administration do not agree. I understand that ed. tech. is complex, vast, and encompasses more than just computers or tablets, but I have had some families who had had strong opinions about their students not having anything to do with technology (television, phones, computers, games, radio, etc.).
General Document Comments 0
Erickson discusses something that has bothered me for a while; decisions are made (often, sometimes) without looking at or engaging in research or even asking for input from those impacted by the decisions.
Teachers don’t want administrators or legislators telling us how to run our classrooms and in some ways, students are starting to push back that teachers might not know all the ways they learn well. For example, ISTE #2 about digital citizenship is asking students to take ownership for their online footprint rather than having adults moderate it for them. ISTE #3 wants students to research on their own and critique that information for what’s real and important rather than having educators prescribe it for them (hence the dead art of the Webquest).
I don’t really have anything intellectual to say here but I have to shout, “AMEN!” I’m not going to go on a rant here, but it is refreshing to know I’m not alone with this thought.
This would allow schools to modify what their daily schedule looks like and their course offerings to best suit the needs of their population.
A couple of times, Erickson mentions test prep., homework, and students feeling burdened and overwhelmed. Shifting to an emphasis on skills rather than the test itself might help with this, especially if partnered with the first ISTE student standard. When people – students included – set their own goals, perceptions change. Certainly no teacher goes into the profession for the joy of test prep., but I do not foresee it going away anytime soon. Changing the way we approach it can help.
I can barely do my subject area justice over the course of a year and now I should take a lesson and allow students freedom to explore and learn on their own? I have no time for that despite a strong desire to see what they’d come up with. At the end of the day, I have to show my administrator and our BOE that I have hit all my standards.
This standard says: 5. Designer
Educators design authentic, learner-driven activities and
environments that recognize and accommodate learner variability.
Educators:
a. Use technology to create, adapt and personalize learning
experiences that foster independent learning and accommodate learner differences and needs.
b. Design authentic learning activities that align with content
area standards and use digital tools and resources to maximize
active, deep learning.
c. Explore and apply instructional design principles to create
innovative digital learning environments that engage and
support learning.
By using something prescribed like a Kahn Academy or NoRedInk, an educator meets this standard. Yet students can still work in isolation and without any input from peers or resources. If teachers see these ISTE standards as a target, by using these types of sites they hit this but at what service to students? This is where Selwyn’s skepticism and a rubric or deep thought process against a framework such as Triple E or SAMR can make a difference as to whether or not the tech is needed and helpful.
Have you seen programs like these work for any of your students? I’m not saying I’m someone who completely buys into these things, but would it work for certain types of learners? Certainly collaboration isn’t effective for all my students all the time, so I imagine tools and programs that are a big prescriptive and/or isolated do have some merit for some students and/or with some skills or content knowledge. I don’t have much experience with these, but I do know my students vary VERY much in terms of what they need to learn, so perhaps these shouldn’t be written off for the masses, nor should they be touted as the saviors for education.
NRI allowed me to create a diagnostic with the standards I wanted and then all my students took it. Based on where they score, the program then provides them appropriate level practice to help them grow. Even better, the site has them choose some of their favorite TV shows and movies and uses those characters and such in the questions to help keep them engaged. I have had many students tell me they really like NRI time in the lab, but I haven’t run an assessment or a new diagnostic in a bit to see if they are actually growing from it or if they just like clicking through the activities.
It’s great for personalized learning. I’ve got a few really struggling, but it’s often outside issues like attendance, homework completion, impulsiveness (answering the question before digesting the prompt), and lack of focus. Once I hurdle those obstacles, they can really get moving.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments